OK- for a one star with one planet/ moon system to work, empty space will have to some factor larger than the system- ie relativity. Put the Sun in the space of say the orbit of Mars and all of a sudden its mass overwhelms that relatively small area which would cause a “black hole effect”, meaning everything would fall into it.

So yes, if a designer could figure out how much space is needed to support such a simple system, it could be pulled off. But such a system would have much less to scientifically discover-> astronomy and cosmology are basically wiped-out.

But anyway, Rich said something about a designer being able to design this complex universe but not a simple one such as his one-star universe, is absurd.

OK- for a one star with one planet/ moon system to work, empty space will have to some factor larger than the system- ie relativity. Put the Sun in the space of say the orbit of Mars and all of a sudden its mass overwhelms that relatively small area which would cause a “black hole effect”, meaning everything would fall into it.

So yes, if a designer could figure out how much space is needed to support such a simple system, it could be pulled off. But such a system would have much less to scientifically discover-> astronomy and cosmology are basically wiped-out.

But anyway, Rich said something about a designer being able to design this complex universe but not a simple one such as his one-star universe, is absurd.

OK- for a one star with one planet/ moon system to work, empty space will have to some factor larger than the system- ie relativity. Put the Sun in the space of say the orbit of Mars and all of a sudden its mass overwhelms that relatively small area which would cause a “black hole effect”, meaning everything would fall into it.

So yes, if a designer could figure out how much space is needed to support such a simple system, it could be pulled off. But such a system would have much less to scientifically discover-> astronomy and cosmology are basically wiped-out.

But anyway, Rich said something about a designer being able to design this complex universe but not a simple one such as his one-star universe, is absurd.

OK- for a one star with one planet/ moon system to work, empty space will have to some factor larger than the system- ie relativity. Put the Sun in the space of say the orbit of Mars and all of a sudden its mass overwhelms that relatively small area which would cause a “black hole effect”, meaning everything would fall into it.

So yes, if a designer could figure out how much space is needed to support such a simple system, it could be pulled off. But such a system would have much less to scientifically discover-> astronomy and cosmology are basically wiped-out.

But anyway, Rich said something about a designer being able to design this complex universe but not a simple one such as his one-star universe, is absurd.

The parameters are that space ends at the orbit of Mars, which isn’t enough space to allow for any orbits given the mass of the Sun at the center of it.

This really is AFDave quality stuff, though it lacks the charming unalloyed faith in the creationist "expert" whose colouring book thesis Dave discovered in the church basement.

Joe has only got his own musings and scribbles on a ketchup-stained napkin.

Fucking hell. I thought Joe was going to turn to "God designed centripetal force" to get out of this mess, but "space ends at the orbit of Mars"? What the fuck does he think Jupiter is travelling through? The 14th dimension? Tea? Wood?

I didn't think there were this many hallucinogens in the world.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

I love that the guy who can't do seventh grade physics is going to overturn all of science.

But he can do flooring - all kinds of floors - so he's got that going for him.

--------------"Science is what got us to the humble place weâ€™re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

I still love the thought of the rest of the universe tugging at earth to stop if falling into the sun. Priceless. Almost any thought at all about that instantly leads you to how wrong it is. But first you must have 'any thought'.

The parameters are that space ends at the orbit of Mars, which isn’t enough space to allow for any orbits given the mass of the Sun at the center of it.

This really is AFDave quality stuff, though it lacks the charming unalloyed faith in the creationist "expert" whose colouring book thesis Dave discovered in the church basement.

Joe has only got his own musings and scribbles on a ketchup-stained napkin.

Fucking hell. I thought Joe was going to turn to "God designed centripetal force" to get out of this mess, but "space ends at the orbit of Mars"? What the fuck does he think Jupiter is travelling through? The 14th dimension? Tea? Wood?

I didn't think there were this many hallucinogens in the world.

If /sarcasm, then disregard this, I eat dicks!

But as for the quote, I thing Joe was just giving the details for his hypothetical model. Granted, it's probably a "6 parts, up to 4 years old" model, but still...

--------------"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

The parameters are that space ends at the orbit of Mars, which isn’t enough space to allow for any orbits given the mass of the Sun at the center of it.

This really is AFDave quality stuff, though it lacks the charming unalloyed faith in the creationist "expert" whose colouring book thesis Dave discovered in the church basement.

Joe has only got his own musings and scribbles on a ketchup-stained napkin.

Fucking hell. I thought Joe was going to turn to "God designed centripetal force" to get out of this mess, but "space ends at the orbit of Mars"? What the fuck does he think Jupiter is travelling through? The 14th dimension? Tea? Wood?

I didn't think there were this many hallucinogens in the world.

If /sarcasm, then disregard this, I eat dicks!

But as for the quote, I think Joe was just giving the details for his hypothetical model. Granted, it's probably a "6 parts, up to 4 years old" model, but still...

ETA: yeah Phil, "I thing", totally legit...

--------------"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

The parameters are that space ends at the orbit of Mars, which isn’t enough space to allow for any orbits given the mass of the Sun at the center of it.

This really is AFDave quality stuff, though it lacks the charming unalloyed faith in the creationist "expert" whose colouring book thesis Dave discovered in the church basement.

Joe has only got his own musings and scribbles on a ketchup-stained napkin.

Fucking hell. I thought Joe was going to turn to "God designed centripetal force" to get out of this mess, but "space ends at the orbit of Mars"? What the fuck does he think Jupiter is travelling through? The 14th dimension? Tea? Wood?

I didn't think there were this many hallucinogens in the world.

Jupiter is travelling through holes made by moles. Very big moles.

-DU-

--------------Being laughed at doesn't mean you're progressing along some line. It probably just means you're saying some stupid shit -stevestory

Yes, Joe has become a "frontloader", it appears. He's also disagreeing with Dembski and Wells that there's evidence for design that contradicts "materialism", and with Behe that there's an "edge" to naturalistic evolution.

Dr. Who knows how to turn around Joe's claims that materialism isn't testable to show that it contradicts any claims that there's evidence for a non-material designer.

That isn't evidence of his beliefs. He just can't shut the F up. Whatever anyone says is wrong and Joe immediately takes the opposite position. Heck, even Joe's socks on his own blog are antagonized by Joe.

I would definitely save that post for future use though and watch Joe squirm.

It would be really funny to have a sock say something (very difficult to parse) that supports front-loading and then let Joe run over him about how he's wrong.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

In a new (still in moderation) gambit Joe is going to teh ethereal nature of information:

Quote

In storage devices. That does not mean the storage devices are the information.

Does a blank disk weigh more, less or the same as a programmed disk?

Weighs the same <> is the same. The information is the configuration. and even then its only information within an existing framework. Can we take both disks away and have keep the information without a substrate?

In a new (still in moderation) gambit Joe is going to teh ethereal nature of information:

Quote

In storage devices. That does not mean the storage devices are the information.

Does a blank disk weigh more, less or the same as a programmed disk?

Weighs the same <> is the same. The information is the configuration. and even then its only information within an existing framework. Can we take both disks away and have keep the information without a substrate?

In 2007 the information on the internet weighed 0.2 millionths of an ounce.

In 1961, IBM physicist Rolf Landauer argued that to reset one bit of information — say, to set a binary digit to zero in a computer memory regardless of whether it is initially 1 or 0 — must release a certain minimum amount of heat, proportional to the ambient temperature. New work has now finally confirmed that Landauer was right. To test the principle, the researchers created a simple two-state bit: a single microscopic silica bead held in a 'light trap' by a laser beam. (Abstract) The trap contains two 'valleys' where the particle can rest, one representing a 1 and the other a 0. It could jump between the two if the energy 'hill' separating them is not too high. The researchers could control this height by changing the power of the laser, and could 'tilt' the two valleys to tip the bead into one of them by moving the physical cell containing the bead slightly out of the laser's focus. By monitoring the position and speed of the particle during a cycle of switching and resetting the bit, they could calculate how much energy was dissipated

In a new (still in moderation) gambit Joe is going to teh ethereal nature of information:

Quote

In storage devices. That does not mean the storage devices are the information.

Does a blank disk weigh more, less or the same as a programmed disk?

Weighs the same <> is the same. The information is the configuration. and even then its only information within an existing framework. Can we take both disks away and have keep the information without a substrate?

In 2007 the information on the internet weighed 0.2 millionths of an ounce.

In 1961, IBM physicist Rolf Landauer argued that to reset one bit of information — say, to set a binary digit to zero in a computer memory regardless of whether it is initially 1 or 0 — must release a certain minimum amount of heat, proportional to the ambient temperature. New work has now finally confirmed that Landauer was right. To test the principle, the researchers created a simple two-state bit: a single microscopic silica bead held in a 'light trap' by a laser beam. (Abstract) The trap contains two 'valleys' where the particle can rest, one representing a 1 and the other a 0. It could jump between the two if the energy 'hill' separating them is not too high. The researchers could control this height by changing the power of the laser, and could 'tilt' the two valleys to tip the bead into one of them by moving the physical cell containing the bead slightly out of the laser's focus. By monitoring the position and speed of the particle during a cycle of switching and resetting the bit, they could calculate how much energy was dissipated